Good morning folks,
I've been asked about runining a test on a PD device that draws about 7 watts.
Is there a CE test on such a device? Or is it scott free being powered by the
Ethernet interface?
Thanks for the insight,
Derek Walton
L F Research
Hi Geetha,
It might be worth checking your measurement setup. If you are using an RF
current probe, then you might be seeing the transitions in the DC draw of the
device. The Vbus and ground delay in balancing could be something on the
order of the time you are mentioning. I would suggest
John,
Nearly all of the products that I work on are intentional transmitters under
the RTTE Directive.
There is not a lot of meat under 60215 to conduct a thorough safety
investigation, so what I have always done is use EN60950(-1) as the main
standard, and declare compliance to EN 60215
John,
I know that the original question related to re-issuing DoCs for the revised
EMC Directive / UK Regulations, but members of this group are likely to be
interested in learning that the UK DTI issued the following advice regarding
the codified LVD - 2006/95/EC since the last para deals with
Folks,
The General Product Safety Directive (in the UK, the General Product Safety
Regulations 2005) have requirements for product recall.
For more info on the UK Regulations, see:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/Safety/products/general-regulations/index.html
The above link takes you to
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:04 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: DoCs After July
In message 001501c74a1c$82d9f3d0$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Tue, 6 Feb
2007, Brian O'Connell
John
There is a good definition for the 60215 standard under the ANSI website:
http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/p
oduct.asp?sku=IEC+60215+Ed.+3.0+b%3A1987
I think the critical factor would be the transmit power. I never did a 60215,
just my opinion.
Regards
Dan Anchondo
Vivotech,
If one has a piece of “information technology” equipment that has
“intentional transmitter” capability what are the critical factors that
would drive the selection of 60950 vs. 60215? Browsing the web there are a
number of pieces of equipment that are clearly “Radio Transmitting
Equipment” that
In message 001501c74a1c$82d9f3d0$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Tue, 6
Feb 2007, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes
As for 'common sense' in operation. Bwwwahhh haaa h
ha
Mr. Woodgate is as amusing as he is knowledgeable
There used to be a standard for common
Very interesting.
In the consumer electronics products like MP3 players ( No serial # marked) ,
Manufacturers always make changes in the products keeping the same model # for
cost reduction purposes. Lot of times these changes are not verified for
compliance even it is declared compliant. In
In message
8EDA858C06972443876C5750516A8F26010729DD@dhrseasvxb03.messaging.danahera
d.com, dated Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Birdsall, Gail gbird...@hach.com
writes
What are your thoughts on the date that the new LVD Directive needs to
be reflected on the D of C's.
Should we be declaring it now (on any
Exactly my thinking. I am forcing a customer to allow us to apply a serial
for that same reason, but it is always better if I can point to a published
requirement.
As for 'common sense' in operation. Bwwwahhh haaa h ha
Mr. Woodgate is as amusing as he is knowledgeable
luck,
In message 486327.79633...@web39608.mail.mud.yahoo.com, dated Tue, 6
Feb 2007, Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com writes
magnetostrictive action ???
No. Wrong term. It should be magnetodynamic.
and I thought that's what made transformers hummm...
Yes; magnetostriction causes magnetic
John,
What are your thoughts on the date that the new LVD Directive needs to be
reflected on the D of C's.
Should we be declaring it now (on any new issue D of C's)?
Do we really need to change existing D of C's that reflect the old 73/23/EEC
to the new 2006/95/EC? And if so by when? (I ask
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback.
Neil,
Yes, you’re right that the DoC should state something like
We hereby declare that product xxx confirms to Directive xxx/yy/EC (list all
those applicable directive), having been tested to the following standards
xx.
But my question is mainly on LVD,
magnetostrictive action ???
and I thought that's what made transformers hummm...
(ps. buzzing is from loose laminations, to differentiate between humming and
buzzing noises.)
Maybe the traces jumping off the board had something to do with the
Biot-Savart law, or one of those other fancy named
Richard, Koh,
A Declaration of Conformity must always declare conformity to the relevant
Directive, not to a specific standard - that is the legal requirement.
That said, I usually adopt wording along the lines of , We hereby declare
that product xxx conforms to the requirements of Directive
I'm avocating designing the trace for continuous fault current. For example,
for 30 amps through 1 oz copper the trace width can be 2.5 cm for a 50 deg C
rise.
For transient conditions (such as until a fuse opens) an adibiatic
calculation is conservative and will do. For that, calculate the
Good question Koh,
Regarding the LVD and EN 60950 for ITE products, wouldn’t the EN 60950
approval supercede the LVD and thus not require
Any mention of LVD on a D of C for europe? Also some products are to meet the
2004/108/EC and some the RTTE directive
And not both.
Regards
Richard,
In message
0ed66cd2c9bd0a459d54fb9119a6056743c...@mailserver.lecotc.com, dated
Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes
Can the maximum continuous fault current be defined by examining the
characteristics of the over current protection device? From that value,
can the PE
From another manufacturer:
There is currently a corrigendum circulating to clarify this issue, but
the way it's currently written, it probably won't survive.
Most agree the calibration should be done at the output terminals where
the EFT is to be applied: direct output or through a CDN.
Let me second the words of Chris. I too, have seen the kinds of
destruction to which he refers. I have done failure analysis on power
controllers where the traces were ripped up leaving the board looking
like a rat's nest. There were two kinds of faults that seemed to cause
very similar
In message 003e01c74a08$42a2ae60$260bb...@colorado.linear.com, dated
Tue, 6 Feb 2007, David Cuthbert dcuthb...@linear.com writes
I'm avocating designing the trace for continuous fault current. For
example, for 30 amps through 1 oz copper the trace width can be 2.5 cm
for a 50 deg C rise.
Dear Experts,
I recently tested some (about 5 different types) USB devices
(USB 1.1 Full speed devices with data rate 12 Mbps, low bus powered devices)
for understanding the common mode current flowing through the cable. To verify
and ensure the balance in the current flowing
Rich,
Thanks to all for your replies.
From a product safety engineer's position, defining the requirements for
testing seems to be favored. However, passing on this information to a
CAD engineer is pretty much useless. They are looking to me to tell them
how wide the PE traces have to be or how
All,
As New LVD, 2006/95/EC repealed 73/23/EEC (including amending directive) from
16 January 2007 onward, all reference to LVD must now state 2006/95/EC.
2006/95/EC is identical to 73/23/EEC (including amending directive).
Is this correct?
Does this means all declaration must now change
In message
of2d47e869.88e22bf1-on8625727a.005051ff-8625727a.0051e...@mmm.com,
dated Tue, 6 Feb 2007, rehel...@mmm.com writes
I had pretty much nothing else to do this morning so I was reading the
new EMC Directive. In Annex IV(2) EC declaration of conformity, it
states that the DoC must
I had pretty much nothing else to do this morning so I was reading the new
EMC Directive. In Annex IV(2) EC declaration of conformity, it states that
the DoC must contain an identification of the apparatus to which it
refers, as set out in Article 9(1). Article 9(1) states Each apparatus
shall be
Hello,
Now, I have a question about interpretation of IEC 61000-4-4 ed.2
clause 6.2.2 about verification of CDNs.
I believed that waveform at output of the CDNs must be verified
for the requirements in clause 6.2.2 of the standard, by applying
the pulse to all the lines simultaneously (e.g.,
Just another two pee's worth of accumulated wisdom from way back in my
Sewage days... (don't ask)
We used 'ASTA certified' motor control centres, rated at 80kA fault
currents, where the 2 x 1/4 copper bus bars were quite capable of tearing
themselves away from their mountings on the occasion of a
In message
5d39f9c94199f64fa82e5809c702aa7c01c...@z-160-100-30-229.est.ibm.com,
dated Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Gordon,Ian ian.gor...@bocedwards.com writes
Someone pointed out this clause in the New EMC Directive:
Article 14
Repeal
Directive 89/336/EEC is hereby repealed as from 20 July 2007.
G'Day (again)!
Err, no! I was talking about the even newer regulations which come/came
into force this year, i.e SI 2006/3418
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/uksi_20063418_en.pdf. A quick word
search reveals no mention of military equipment?
Regards
Alan
From:
G'Day!
Apart from losing the Competent Body in the new UK EMC regulations, we seem
to have lost the exemption for military equipment.
Or have I not read the regulations thoroughly enough?
…and any idea if and when the DTi will issue new guidelines for industry?
I'll have to have another go
33 matches
Mail list logo
